Conservative Christian

[pmh1nic]

The discussion of young earth, old earth is interesting and I think Buck 72 made some interesting observations in his first few post.

First let me say that my being a Christian is not contingent on a young or old earth and all to do with Jesus Christ being who He claimed to be, my Savior and the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Science is based in man's ability to perceive and understand what he "sees" in the physical universe. My guess is we've advanced quite a bit since Newton and Galileo...or have we? In fact we may just have begun to scratch the surface.

There was a time that the "science" of the day said the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Those conclusions were based in the perceptions of the best "technology" of the day. Our perception of the universe and the conclusions we draw from what we can see using the best scientific instruments of the day may turn out to be very false conclusions.

I have been fascinated with science and astronomy since I was a little child, as far back as I can remember. The wonders of the physical universe are awe inspiring. But we are more then star stuff and someday science may catch up with that reality.

For some science is their religion. Others will filter their religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddism, etc.) through the lense of science. I would serious question the wisdom of filtering your Christianity and your literal interpretation of the Bible through the changing and imperfect lense of science. Science might one day "prove" that bodily resurrection is impossible or that it is impossible to turn water into wine or walk on water.

Does anyone that has posted in this thread have a Ph.D in physics or biochemistry or ancient Hebrew? My guess is probably not. Even if you did it's not a guarantee of anything since those with a Ph.D in XYZ discipline disagree.

The vast majority of the world is anti-Christ and anti-Christian. It spite of the claims otherwise my guess is there is a really bias within the scientific community to finding answers to the origins of life that have anything other than a physical explanation.

Having been around for fifty years and seen the things that one day were heralded as scientifically sound and the next pushed aside as a false conclusions based in faulty perception I don't have an unwavering faith in science.

Christianity doesn't require that we put our brain on the shelf but in using our intellect we need to not play God. His thoughts and His ways are so far above us and the wisdom of man is foolishness with God. Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things UNSEEN.

You're not going to find God with your intellect only. I believe our intellect points us in the direction of a creator. But ultimately knowing Him goes way beyond our intellect to a matter of spirit, that part of us that communes with that realm or dimension that science hasn't learned how to weight or measure.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

Actually I have a PhD in theoretical physics and I also did a M.Sc in Biochemistry. Though I don't use the Biochem I just did it for fun a few years ago.

That is why I tend to poke fun at the science arguments from YEC's.

By the way - list your science concepts you claim were 'scientifically sound but then pushed aside'.

 

[pmh1nic]

Chi_Cygni

I admire your work ethic.

"'scientifically sound but then pushed aside'"

I was absolute sure the earth was flat .

Seriously, in my early years of education there was nothing smaller than the atom, the universe was infinite, the speed of light was constant and light didn't bend. There were three dimension (plus time) and no black holes where I hear the known laws of physics don't apply (although given your credentials you can correct me on that one).

I don't doubt that you know far more about physics (I had one college physic's class that was one of the most interesting classes I ever took) but I have no way to judge if your level of knowledge about the physical universe is closer to the begin or end of what there is to know. I also know (a knowing that you don't derive from laboratory experiments or astronomical observation) that there is a realm of reality beyond what can be seen with physical eyes. I understand that science limits itself to the physical universe and doesn't address the realm of the spiritual. On the other hand the spiritual realm (if you believe in such a thing) can, according to my understanding of the Bible, impact the physical realm. Science doesn't factor in (and maybe rightly it shouldn't) the interaction of the spiritual or supernatural with the physical. That is one reason that I take scientific "findings" or "discoveries" with a grain (sometimes a large) grain of salt. Science ignors a whole segment of "reality" that I believe is responsible for why we are here.

Did God play a trick on science fashioning the universe in a way that based on our limited ability to measure, test and perceive would cause us to believe in a 15 billion year old universe? I don't think God plays trick like that. But our perception just might the byproduct of our limited perception and a lack of the full understanding of how the physical universe operates.

My faith in science is not as unwavering or ironclad as some on this forum.

 

[Chi_Cygni]

I agree on the spiritual/science dichotomy. But I don't see (and have never seen) the supernatural occur.

I agree God isn't a deceiver BUT I think the scientific evidence is not only overwhelming for an old Universe, I think the evidence is also not really open to other interpretation.

I think one thing that isn't stressed enough is the concordancy of the data from a wide range of disciplines indicating an old Universe.

I think your comments on your early education are really based upon the pop culture science at the time and high school classes and the like.

I don't know your age but we are probably not that far apart.

I can tell you that back in the early 70's I knew of the concepts of quarks, de Sitter universes, Friedmann equation, FRW universes, closed vs open models etc.

The speed of light is constant - possible exception in some inflation scenarios (but I stress the variability is only very early in the Big Bang). Black holes don't violate the known laws of physics it is just some of the known laws exhibit counter intuitive behaviour that goes against everyday experience. Heck, Schwarzchild worked out the first solution to the field equations within a month or so of Einstein publishing his derivation of the field equations.
And that was almost 90 years ago.

 

[Vance]

Buck, here is poll information you requested:


Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

News item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29. They quoted the Conservative News Service.


And, even among FUNDAMENTALIST Christians, IN AMERICA, less than half (43%) believe that God created the universe thousands of years ago. This was a poll taken by Focus on the Family. 56% believed either that they did not know when it was created (thus denying the YEC literalism) or believed it was billions of years old.

Again, this last was among Focus on the Family readers, which means they are among the most fundamentalist in the world.

 

[pmh1nic]

Chi_Cygni

"I can tell you that back in the early 70's I knew of the concepts of quarks, de Sitter universes, Friedmann equation, FRW universes, closed vs open models etc."

I don't remember any references to these things in my 1960's high school science classes . But I'm sure it takes a generation or more for the leading edge "stuff" to filter down. Then again I wonder how many people (myself include) real, I mean really, understand the concepts of time, space, matter, anti-matter, the physics inside a black hole, etc.

I'm not "hung up" on a young earth because I don't think a literal interpretation of the Bible requires it. I'm not a Hebrew scholar but C.H. Pember in his book "Earth's Earliest Ages" discuss the meaning of the different words translated create and how the the Hebrew means differ.

But whether its a misconception on the part of science (that the earth is old) or a misconception on the part of some that translate the Biblical account of creation to mean the earth is young doesn't affect or change what I "know" or the supernatural experiences that have had a dramatic affect on the course of my life.

What I know is that on January 6th, 1972 I was a 19 year old high school dropout, addicted to heroin, sell drugs on the streets of NYC and committing other crimes to support my drug habit. An old friend I hadn't seen in a while stop by my house to tell me that there was a God who loved me, sent His Son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for my sins and the He had a purpose and plan for my life if I would ask for forgiven and was willing to live for him. I got on my knees and did just that and my life was totally turn around. Something change and something was awakened in me that day, something deeper then mind and intellect.

There is a tremendous amount I don't understand. I'd like your take on some of the things posted by Buck 72 earlier in this thread. I'm wondering if our growing understanding of the physical is taking us to the edge of understanding the supernature and spiritual.

Again, these may be things science hasn't yet developed (or may never develop) the instruments to measure, calculate or perceive there existance. Maybe that "concordancy of the data from a wide range of disciplines" points in the same direction due to the physical limitation all of those disciplines are straddle with. I would also think that closing the door to "other interpretation" may at times hinder the uncovering of the truth.

Real Christianity is based on one incredible supernatural event that if it didn't happen would make it absolute futile and empty. That event is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Everything else in the Bible hangs on the reality of that one event. Discussing the evidence for a young earth verses old earth is quite interesting but I don't think the outcome of the debate is really that crucial. The real crucial question is whether Jesus Christ is who He said He was, God come in the flesh to give His life for the sins of the world.

P.S. Given your credentials I'd be interested in your take on some of the things mentioned by Buc72 (nature of light, nature of time and the architecture of the solar system).

 

[Chi_Cygni]

pmh1nic,

I find Buck72's arguments on here to be nothing short of ridiculous.

He is without a doubt clueless when it xomes to science.

I find him on the same level as Ark Guy, they literally (pun intended) seem to just not understand even basic high school science.

 

[Buck72]

You have shown repeatedly on here that you just don't understand scientific issues. You seem incapable of following even the basics.

That's OK, some people are just not cut out for doing the math and reasoning required, just like I am not cut out for painting or being a carpenter.

But I don't tell a carpenter how to make a chest of drawers. He/she would rapidly know I am talking out of my rear end on his area of expertise.

The same thing applies to people like you, who quite clearly are incapable of understanding science. That is what I do for a living and I can spot the clueless a mile away.

Dude, is there any end to your insanity? I have degrees in Physics and Aerodynamics, my science is based upon provable, demonstrable laws of the physical realm...not fantasic reaches as to the origin of matter, space, time requiring billions of years, or educated discussions about rabbit poop. I do not base my salvation on MAN'S IDEA OF science, but on the LIVING WORD OF GOD. My science Chi does not fit with yours, just like my faith doesn't fit with yours - my question for you is:

Who are you? This level of arrogance is shocking to someone who claims to know Christ...no thread of humility whatsoever.

You even showed a good example above. You just don't get it that rabbits and hares are not ruminants and you even provided a definition. My advice to you is 'don't quit your day job'. Science just isn't in your skill set.

Does the Bible say: "Rabbits and Hares are "RUMINANTS"? It says they chew the cud but does not split the hoof. Let's try a new lesson, let's read it in context:

Lev 11:1 The LORD spoke again to Moses and to Aaron, saying to them,

Lev 11:2 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, 'These are the creatures which you may eat from all the animals that are on the earth.

Lev 11:3 'Whatever divides a hoof, thus making split hoofs, and chews the cud, among the animals, that you may eat.

Lev 11:4 'Nevertheless, you are not to eat of these, among those which chew the cud, or among those which divide the hoof: the camel, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you.

Lev 11:5 'Likewise, the shaphan, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;

Lev 11:6 the rabbit also, for though it chews cud, it does not divide the hoof, it is unclean to you;


גּרה

gêrâh

gay-raw'

From H1641; the cud (as scraping the throat): - cud.



גּרר

gârar

gaw-rar'

A primitive root; to drag off roughly; by implication to bring up the cud (that is, ruminate); by analogy to saw: - catch, chew, X continuing, destroy, saw.




Lev 11:7 and the pig, for though it divides the hoof, thus making a split hoof, it does not chew cud, it is unclean to you.

Lev 11:8 'You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.

PS - Are you serious when you say that you did not know the word ruminant. Wow - what an education. And you seriously expect me to take your scientific arguments with anything more than a laugh.

My education is aerospace...not bunnies. That is why I looked up the definition and posted it for others that did not have the fortune of Chi to attend "bunny school".

Which makes it even more laughable that you claim scientific journals for their ridiculousness. Since you don't understand the articles how can you make the distinction between the cogent and the foolish. The internal combustion engine would have been 'magic' to people 20 centuries ago but that doesn't mean it works by the supernatural.

Oh I understand them fine. I get ill reading about the non-existant Oort cloud explaining why we have comets flying around through space that haven't eroded away to nothing over these supposed billions of years of shedding material through space. Jan Oort never saw the Oort cloud, and in your own anwer the thing cannot be proven, nor observed.

What I see instead is the "shifting of the burden of proof" that now YEC is required to prove that the Oort Cloud doesn't exist...forget the evolutionists burden of proving that it does exist. Here's an example for our younger viewers as to what I mean:

Watermelons are blue on the inside until you cut the rind.

Prove I'm wrong.

It is STUPID SCIENCE. Real science, you should know this with your superior education in rabbit poop and other matters...is based upon things that we know, observe, can accurately measure, quantify, and demonstrate. Hypothetical conjecture can be based on some solid data or evidence, but CAN RESULT IN THE WRONG COCLUSION. I contest that the less-than-200-year-old evolution theory is just that...a wrong conclusion.

You can find refutations to the science nonsense you have posted on here. Many threads contain this material. I am not going to take the time to repost the obvious.

Anything can be refuted. Satan refuted God's word to Eve and now look at the place.

About the 90% figure. Take a look at the denominational breakdown of Christianity. 90% of the Christians in the world are made up of Catholics, Anglicans and the Orthodox Church. These churches are not literalists. The vast majority of literalists are in the North American Protestant denominations that are relatively recent groups.

Okay, where does 90% of non-literal Bible-believers come from?

These churches seem to have made a cult of the Bible more than anything else. And at the risk of offending, whenever I have seen commentary on these groups they don't posess the most educated of members. (obviously thats a sweeping statement but there is some truth to it).

Chi...I'm astounded at your claim for superior intellect and yet you MISS the whole of the matter for the sake of infintessimal minutia.

Who has made a "cult" but them that stray from the truth to embrace and untruth? Why does God speak of making the foolish things to confound the wise? This is Christianity here bro:

1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

1Co 1:20 Where is the 1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,

1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1Co 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

1Co 1:26 For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

1Co 1:27 but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong,

1Co 1:28 and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are,

1Co 1:29 so that no man may boast before God.

1Co 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

1Co 1:31 so that, just as it is written, "LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."

I suppose that we'll have to wait until Christ returns to see these poor idiots you speak of vindicated for thei faith in eternal truths verses the geniuses that jump like kids for candy for the next scientific "find" to somehow "disprove" the Bible.

Time for a re-defining of what CHRISTIANITY means: a collective belief and practical following of Christ. Check it out.

 

[Buck72]

pmh1nic,

I find Buck72's arguments on here to be nothing short of ridiculous.

He is without a doubt clueless when it xomes to science.

I find him on the same level as Ark Guy, they literally (pun intended) seem to just not understand even basic high school science.

Wow, another taunt by the all-knowing Chi.

Touche'

I find you without a doubt clueless when it comes to the Word of God.

I'd rather err on the side of Bible any day...the eternality of the Judgement is more than I dare to risk. You'd do well to consider the same.

Pro 8:13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.

Pro 11:2 When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom.

Pro 16:18 Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.

Pro 21:24 "Proud," "Haughty," "Scoffer," are his names, Who acts with insolent pride.

Pro 29:23 A man's pride will bring him low, But a humble spirit will obtain honor.

Isa 2:17 The pride of man will be humbled And the loftiness of men will be abased; And the LORD alone will be exalted in that day,

 

[Buck72]

Buck, here is poll information you requested:


Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve.

News item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29. They quoted the Conservative News Service.


And, even among FUNDAMENTALIST Christians, IN AMERICA, less than half (43%) believe that God created the universe thousands of years ago. This was a poll taken by Focus on the Family. 56% believed either that they did not know when it was created (thus denying the YEC literalism) or believed it was billions of years old.

Again, this last was among Focus on the Family readers, which means they are among the most fundamentalist in the world.

Thanks Vance, I appreciate your efforts to answer my question. I mean that.

I would immediately question the Roman Catholic opinions, but I do not wish to start a fight with the true believers in that faith (though its theological mistakes are many). The Anglicans just voted for a Gay Bishop, no doubt splitting those of that faith against one another (as there is ZERO scriptural support of any kind for that decision), and the Focus on the Family readers, that does come as somewhat of a suprise, but not totally, as you yourself are conservative and believe in the non-literality of the word, we've agreed on its non-issue for salvation, though I continue to point at the danger in that practice, due to its lack of any definition of what is/isn't literal/non-literal.

Polls are always subjective, and many times only represent a selection of specified people and then misused to get a broader coverage like Chi's "90% of Christians" mis-quote.

The practice/belief of many does not make it right...("Many on that day will say...."), the Word is the standard by which we are measure things among those that believe.

 

[Vance]

You are right, the commonality of a belief is no assurance that it is correct. The only point to this information is the shock and amazement many fundamentalists here in America express when they discover that other Christians believe differently than what they have been taught.

Your own amazement when you came to this forum is a case in point. It seems that you really had no idea that Bible-believing, Spirit-filled and led Christians could really differ on these points in any significant numbers.

Having grown up in the Fundamentalist womb, I can understand how isolated the group becomes, coming to believe that they represent the mainstream of Christian thought and worship. While a growing movement, it is still a minority.

 

[Buck72]

I keep having these afterthoughts...sorry fellas, not trying to hog up the bytes here :


When Christ warned us in Matthew 7:13-14 about the broad way leading to destruction and the many that go that way, and the narrow way leading to life and the FEW that go that way, I cannot help but consider that it is the least popular road that is the "straight and narrow". I'm also concerned that Christ says we are to be the "salt of the earth" (Matt 5:13) ~ salt irritates. Further wonder has me pondering why He would say things like this:


Mat 10:34-36 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD.

That is strange stuff. But it gets stranger...

Mat 10:16-17 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves, But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues;

Mat 10:22 "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved.

Mat 24:9 "Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name.

My point is this:

If the gate you're relying on is wide, with a large majority taking advantage of it, you've got the wrong gate!

This isn't to suppose that we're to turn off our brains just to be different - far from it! We are to hold fast to the word of God that we may prove ourselves to be narrow-road, narrow-gate seekers of the promises of Christ.

Phi 2:15-16a so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life

 

[pmh1nic]

The quoting of statistics regarding what percentage of "christians" believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible really doesn't shed much light on this subject. There are times, especially with respect to controversial subjects, where the major is wrong (the reverse is also true).

Chi_Cygni
I respect your expertise in these matters but I wonder about your objectivity given your statement that the evidence is not open to a different interpretation. Have you read a book like "In Six Days" in which scientist from many disciplines discuss their reasons for believing in a literal interpretation of the Bible (based in their understanding of scientific discovery) and their reservations regarding evolution? Some of these folks have credentials similiar to you and some of them disagree that the interpretation of the evidence is closed.

 

[Vance]

The problem with that argument is that Christianity is still the most popular religion in the world. Should we then question whether it is Truth, and look for a more obscure and less popular path? Of course not.

More to the point for this debate, a young earth was the most popular belief regarding the age of the earth for many centuries, until the 1800's.

Truth can not be discerned by the degree a belief is popular OR unpopular.